Talk:Previously on 24
Previously on 24 ::: Sorry, I got lost in all the arguing, but for this page (or indervidual season pages) I was thinking we could have for each episode a summary of what happened in the "Previously on 24...". We could then get pictures for it. At the top of the main article we could have a summary of the Previously on 24 and how it fits into 24 because I think it is one of the defining bits of the show. Or we could just argue... --24 Administration 20:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Thank you, 24 administration. I'll get working to improve it ASAP, as soon as we stop arguing and get some guidelines out. I don't want to argue anymore, anyway. So, some guidelines please? Also, thanks to Lord Alexo for adding some stuff and overhauling the article! Yay!--Conspiracy Unit 21:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC) This article is really interesting idea, I think it could be more than a list of appearances though. Anyone got any ideas on what could be in it? --24 Administration 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC) : Something like this? Maybe with the non-featured previouslies added in, so we can see which ones got a name card and which didn't? --StBacchus 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC) :: I did include all of the previouslies. I just listed each card and all of the scenes that followed it. --Proudhug 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC) ::: Oh oh oh. Yep, I see. Well, then...something like that? --StBacchus 03:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC) ::::Yeah, that would be good, and maybe seperate pages for each season? --Conspiracy Unit 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Definitely if you're going to do the expanded version as it is now, each season should have its own page. I don't know if they ought to be subpages or each their own page, but somehow this way seemed good. I switched the line breaks to bullets for season 1, to see how it looks. It would also be really easy to do a simple table. --StBacchus 00:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Imbroglio : It might also be cool there were separate pages for each episode. Each page would recap all of the things that were shown in the previously for that week, plus we could include other stuff, like a detailed synopsis of that entire episode with pictures, a list of the cast members, memorable quotes from that episode, trivia, etc. --Proudhug 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC) :: That would be so convenient. Then, if someone wanted the previously information for a season, all they'd need to do is look for it on the 24 individual pages! Let's delete all the cast lists, too. There's no reason anybody would want that stuff all in one place, when they could just check each of the 120 episode pages. Besides, it's taking up valuable server space. --StBacchus 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC) : Haha, such fun. We start out with such a small, harmless piece of information spread out over its 119 respective pages. Then we decide that it needs to all be on one page, so as to have all of the information in one convenient location. For whatever reason. It's not really cross-referencable stuff, but whatever. Then we decide that that page should be split up into several different pages because it's too much for one article! Every time I start think that okay maybe someone might find some use for what we're doing, it's completely changed to make it seem even less useful. : Also, where the heck did the elipsis come from? It's not in any episode I've ever seen. --Proudhug 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC) What the hell is the elipsis? And if you don't like this page, don't get involved in it, there are other admin users on this site. --Conspiracy Unit 03:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC) : Conspiracy Unit, the ellipsis is the "..." part of the article title. Proudhug, obviously someone finds the information useful, because someone has been arguing strenuously to include it. It doesn't matter if you, as one person, find this information useful or interesting or "encyclopedic." This is a community-driven resource, not your personal repository for 24 information. You don't own the wiki, and we don't work for you. --StBacchus 06:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC) :: You completely missed my point. Or deliberately avoided it. --Proudhug 08:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Bacchus deliberately avoided your point? What, your angry at her for stealing your bit? --Conspiracy Unit 23:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC) : Thanks for saying that, because I was starting to wonder if I forgot how to read or something. Proudhug, your point, as stated, is that our useless project is extra useless if it's on five pages instead of one. Because 5 = 120, I guess. I hope you can see why I focused on the "useless" part instead of the numbers part. : I will do my best to be clear. This page contains a simple count of all previously appearances. That gives a general overview, like an index. This page also contains links to five subpages. Each subpage will contain more detailed descriptions of the previouslies for each episode. Why subpages? This is why subpages. The information will be easier to read and edit on five pages than one. Although it may seem contradictory, the information will also be easier to read and edit on five pages than 120. I could also adapt the Research Files tables so it can all be displayed one page, but it's going require creating five more pages either way. : But there's good news. Since this is the Internet, we can have lots of pages and nobody who doesn't want to look at them has to see them. Those folks don't even have to flip past pages they don't like, because our encyclopedia isn't a book. And since it's all sponsored by Wikia, you and I don't even have to pay for all the bandwidth we're using. Does that about cover your objections? --StBacchus 04:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC) :: Thank you for your clear, mature, intelligent reply. I miss those from people sometimes. I'm sure you got it, but just to clarify, my entire point was to illustrate some of the absurdities of recent events. Someone requested a page be created, despite later creating the page himself. Okay, whatever. I saw absolutely no useful purpose for the page, and was never given any reason other than "it's interesting". Oh, and it puts all this "purposeless" information in one spot, which I'm all for, in theory. Then suddenly, this one page is too big and needs to be split into five pages. I was amusingly baffled by the irony of this. I realize that 5 ≠ 120, but regardless, the whole "information in one spot" thing has completely fallen apart. I've realized that I don't have the articulation skills to adequately explain myself about this issue, but it ultimately doesn't matter. Like you said, I don't have to read it if I don't want to. Perhaps this entire issue was less about the previouslies and more about trying to make people see the absurdity of their actions. :: ... says the guy who edits an online TV show encyclopedia. :-) --Proudhug 04:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC) :My apologies, Proudhug. I'm not trying to get under your skin, but I seem to have done so anyway. Are you always so welcoming? I just wanted some support, as before I launched into the project I needed to know someone had my back. Now that I know I have at least one friend/ally here, I won't bother asking your permission, as it'll just get personal and bitter like this has. So I did it, and I have support from one quarter and even 24 Admin saying 'interesting idea.' Despite this argument, I'm not going to leave over this, like someone else, and I'm just going to say 'Whatever', and continue working making certain articles better, and fighting to have the Mole page made featured article. And, if my little spiel doesn't result in my being blocked or the deletion of the page that I made my personal cause, the fine. At least I got it off of my chest. --Conspiracy Unit 07:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Proudhug, Conspiracy Unit requested the page because he didn't want to waste his time making something you would delete. That's not absurd, that's good sense. Sure enough, you did try to kill the page, on the grounds that it's not "interesting." That's bad policy for many reasons, not least of which being that it's totally subjective. CU can't prove this page is interesting any more than you can prove it isn't. There is only one fair way to decide what's interesting: if someone is interested, it's interesting. The same goes for "useful." Having created the page, there's still the organization issue. It's very important that people be able to find what they're looking for easily. I assume that's why you made three new pages out of the single sentence "Teri Bauer worked at the Offizi Galleria in Florence, Italy" despite that all of them have exactly the same content. I'm not understanding why you think information must be on either one page or 120. We've got separate pages for Jack Bauer's actions before Day 1, on Day 1, and after Day 1. Isn't all the information about Jack Bauer supposed to be in the same place, or what? I didn't understand your objection to dividing big pages into smaller pages when it was about the Research Files, and I guess I still don't. If you can't explain what you'd rather see, maybe you could do an example? --StBacchus 15:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC) : Yikes. I'm worse at explaining myself than I thought! : I never once tried to "kill" this page. Nothing I've ever said was meant to get this page deleted. Nothing about this page breaks the rules of Wiki 24, so technically, it's perfectly acceptable. All I've been trying to do is find out what use it would be. Like I said, if someone wanted to make a list of times Jack Bauer uses the word "is", I'd have posed all these same questions. I'm not asking anyone to delete or abandon the project, just to explain its usefulness to me. This isn't something that needs to be done, it's just a personal request that clearly can't be simply done, or it would have been, by now. If I wanted to kill the page, why would I spend an entire freakin' afternoon viewing all of the previouslies for S1 and compiling an annotated list of them?! I want the page to have usefulness, however I researched it myself and couldn't find any. Sure it's an interesting idea, I never said the page wasn't interesting, just that that's the only positive comment I've read about the page. : Your argument about multiple pages is completely backwards. You're the one that said it needed to all be on one page, not me. My point is that the information is already split up into its respective episode pages, easily locatable and viewable, and that's fine. I personally never understood why anyone would need it all in one spot (obviously it doesn't matter why), but you were quick to realize that the information needs to be broken down, anyway. Much like it already is. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying it's wrong, just funny. --Proudhug 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC) :: Not two weeks ago, you deleted a page for being "trivia." Nothing about that page broke the rules either (except the title, which you yourself have said should merely be changed), but you skipped putting it up for deletion and just got rid of it. When CU suggested Previously on 24, you said it was useless, insignificant, not factual, weird, pointless, and yes, not interesting. Don't take my word for it. Then, you came here and mocked our discussion on how to organize the page without offering any suggestions. Now you're saying you never intended any of this as any kind of argument against the page, you were just curious. :: Okay, but it would be great if you could consider how your words and actions are coming off to others. Right now, it seems like you might delete or fight against any page just because you don't think it's "useful" or "interesting" or "encyclopedic." All of those are subjective and unfair as criteria for inclusion. It's not good for the community to have that kind of pressure. :: Our goal here is a concise listing of the previouslies. This is simply a different way to look at the previouslies: with each other instead of paired with each individual episode. That might take one page or 10 pages, but it will never take 120 pages. The information is not easily locatable and viewable on 120 pages, it is scattered. For the purposes of examining just the previouslies, by themselves, five pages is similar to one page, not 120 pages. Five pages is not "much like" 120 pages, and I don't know why you keep saying it is. --StBacchus 03:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)